Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Bord Glas Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 14:
In page 8, lines 29 to 32, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The chief executive shall hold office on a contract basis for a specified period as may be determined by the Minister. Such contract shall be renewable at the discretion of the Board.".
—(Deputy Farrelly).

We have debated this amendment at considerable length. The focus of the House has been on it for a long time. I would ask Deputy Farrelly to consider withdrawing the amendment. As I pointed out to him there is sufficient flexibility within the specifications laid down in the section of the Bill dealing with the issue to allow for different ways and means of appointing the chief executive to be examined in detail at a later stage. I know he is supportive of the measures we are introducing and I know he would not want this amendment to stand in the way of progress on the Bill.

The Minister informed us that if this amendment was accepted it would be putting the chief executive in a straitjacket. I would not like to think that the chief executive would be in a straitjacket or that anything I would propose would be associated with putting him in a straitjacket. If he is the type of person who we all agree should be appointed, holding back is what I hope the Minister would be complaining about: he is moving so fast that one cannot keep up with him. That is the type of dynamic person we would have and he will not be in any straitjacket. Under section 5 I was concerned that he would be in a type of straitjacket. As I have not been able to use my influence to change the mind of the Minister or his officials I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now come to deal with amendment No. 15 in the name of the same Deputy.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, subsection (8), line 3, to delete "not be a member of the Board" and substitute "be a non-voting member of the Board".

Under this amendment the chief executive would be a non-voting member of the board and would be available at the board meetings to take into consideration all the viewpoints raised by the members of the board. When the new board is appointed their comments and ideas will be very important. I expect a number of them to come from the grassroots as they are the people who are deeply involved in the industry not alone now but in past years. I would like to think that the chief executive would gain a vast amount of experience and ideas from those people and to bring those and his own ideas to bear on the organisation, thus ensuring that we would have a coherent organisation run by the chairman of the board, with the chief executive being a non-voting member of that board. That is my reason for the amendment and I would ask the Minister to be kind enough to accept it.

I find it difficult to agree with the last speaker on this amendment. I am sure I would find many other areas of agreement with him. I find it extraordinary that a meeting would be held without a chief executive officer who would normally be in attendance at meetings of his board, as the principal officer to the board, and that it would be necessary for him to be a non-voting member of the board that he served. He is a servant of the board, not a member of the board. To give him the status of a member of the board would put the board in an impossible position because he is there as their chief executive officer to carry out the policy decisions they make. If we accept this amendment the whole idea of a chief executive officer would be standing on its head and we would no longer have a chief executive officer. The chairman or somebody else would have to take over that role rather than the chief executive officer. I would ask the Minister to explain in better detail than I have done to Deputy Farrelly the actual working position and ask him to withdraw the amendment.

I would go along with what Deputy Stagg has said and ask Deputy Farrelly to withdraw the amendment. The position is that the chief executive will be a servant of the board, but he will be in a position to make proposals at board meetings at board level. I am trying to reach the logic of the amendment to see what exactly is in it. The chief executive will reflect the decisions of the board and he will implement them via his secretarial and staffing personnel which would be available to him. The fact that he will have the power to make proposals at board level gives him sufficient status at operational level for the board to ensure that there will be sufficient cohesion between his position and the decision-making process of the board proper.

If the Minister feels that the chief executive will have all these rights and availability to the board and if the Minister says that the system as it is known in other areas works, then I would have no hangup on his not being a voting member of the board. If he attends the meetings he will ensure that the system works efficiently and that the wishes of the members of the board are carried out on the basis that he will be there to take note and, indeed, to advise. Together they can bring forward the proposals which will be beneficial to the industry long term.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
Short Title agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

Amendment No. 16 is in the name of Deputy Stagg. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 form composite proposals. Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to amendment No. 19 and amendment No. 17 is related to amendment No. 18. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 together.

Amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19 are specifically related to one proposal and they obviously were separated by accident. The other two amendments are about another matter. I ask that we discuss amendments Nos. 16, 19 and 20 as one unit.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 13, paragraph 7 (a), line 41, to delete "5" and substitute "4".

The purpose of this amendment is not to change the overall numbers on the board but to change the composition of the ten members. At present in the Bill it is broken up into two fives and I ask that it be reduced to four in each case. The two remaining places arising from that should be filled by worker-representatives or directors to be appointed by an effective system to be devised by the Minister.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure a wider employee participation in the operation of the board. Indeed, the Government have already made some progress in this area in other sectors of State interests. Employees have an enormous contribution to make in defining policy as they have on-the-ground experience, are in touch with the work of the board every day and — in this case — will be familiar with the work of their producers and growers. It would be foolish not to incorporate that experience and talent at board level. I hope that eventually all economic activity will be determined by workers and consumers instead of the present system. However, this amendment is not about attaining that long term goal as the Government would have a fundamental ideological difficulty in accepting it. On the basis that it is simply to improve the board and to give them an expertise which will be missing without worker participation, the Minister, without any ideological difficulty — which I accept he might have with my overall position — could accept my proposal as this is already happening in areas under the control of other Ministers.

I have no ideological problem with Deputy Stagg's amendment. However, the problem is that the staff of the board will be relatively small as it will not be a huge, bureaucratic organisation. It would be unwise to accede to the provision in Deputy Stagg's amendment because of the very small number of staff involved. The board level involvement of workers in other State organisations is an entirely different matter. We are talking about a very small number of staff and, in those circumstances, we could not appoint people at board level. Union representation will be more than adequate to look after the interests of those who are working with the board.

Perhaps the Minister will be a bit more forthcoming. While I accept that there will be a small number of employees relative to other State bodies, will he give us an indication of how he might tap the expertise to which I referred and which will be missing from the board? The specialised knowledge employees have will not be available immediately to the board. Will the Minister have consultations on a regular basis, through staff organisations, to advise the board? I have heard that this has occurred outside the structure of employee-directors in other areas where there is consultation and where workers can have a direct input without being board members.

The Minister made a point which I cannot accept. He said that because the staff was small, their interests would be looked after by the trade unions. Surely that is not the spirit in which this amendment is tabled? It is in the spirit of having across the board representations and for the purpose of promoting the objective of An Bord Glas, the development of our horticultural sector.

I do not agree with the concept of the board proposed in the Bill. Until such time as we see how this new development works, it would be wrong to agree to Deputy Stagg's amendment. Members of staff will be au fait with the board because of the officials who have been assigned to this work over the last few years and who have made a fair input to date. They will also have a fair input to make in the future to the board. We should get the best people available and this applies to any industry. Of course, things can change and amendments can be made to the legislation but on this occasion, I agree with the Minister's point of view.

I should like to refer to the composition of the board. Having spoken to the people on the ground in the horticultural area of north county Dublin I know there is concern among them about the composition of the board because at the end of the day it will be comprised of nominees of the Minister.

Paragraph 7 (a) of the Schedule reads:

(a) 5 (one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister) shall be persons engaged in, or having knowledge or experience (being knowledge or experience that the Minister considers appropriate for membership of the Board) ...

That is fair enough because I have no doubt, bearing in mind the Minister's record, he will include people of proven ability on the board.

Reverting to Deputy Stagg's amendment there is the feeling among the people engaged in the industry that they should have a say in proposing a member of the board other than a nominee of the Minister so that there be some participation by people working on the ground. If one looks at paragraphs 7 (a) and (b) one sees that virtually all of the ten members will be nominated by the Minister. Bearing in mind developments worldwide, and particularly in the semi-State sector here, I contend there should be worker participation. Regrettably it appears the Minister will not accept Deputy Stagg's amendment but he should demonstrate somewhat more movement or flexibility to meet the legitimate needs of the people engaged in the industry on the ground. That is the case as it has been represented to me anyway.

It is fair to say that we will be more than anxious to get a representative board as distinct from a board of representatives. That is fairly desirable in the case of any body. It is important to appoint people who will have an input into the wellbeing and deliberations of the board on a continuous basis.

When one examines the overall spectrum of horticulture the area Deputy Seán Ryan represents is relatively small when gauged against the whole of the industry in this country. Yet there are many important segments whose representatives should have a say at board level. Bearing in mind the relatively small number of staff involved — perhaps ten — when one examines the various sectors, such as mushrooms, glasshouses, potato growers, the processing people, wholesalers, multiples, all of whom will need to have a say at board level, because of the desirability to maintain the board small and compact, then it would not be desirable to have more members on An Bord Glas than on the board of Teagasc. We must also bear in mind that much of their professional work — the educational, advisory and research aspects — will be catered for by Teagasc whose staff have an input in that body. Bearing all of that in mind we should leave as many positions as possible available to primary producers, wholesalers, multiples or whoever at board level.

The Minister could move further than he is doing to meet the case being made. I think the Minister accepts the genuineness of the case we are making. He must appoint a certain number of representatives to the board. I accept what he says, that those people must be of the best calibre. Can the Minister not give the House some assurance that he will be able to find among the staff somebody suitably qualified. I would even leave it to the Minister to find such a person rather than leaving it to the employees to do so.

The purpose of my amendment is not to protect employees but rather to enhance the composition of the board, rendering it a better one, bringing the specialised knowledge of employees to bear at board level. That is highly desirable. It is my understanding that, once the Bill is enacted, the Minister will have the requisite powers to do so without accepting my amendment. If he can indicate that that would be his intention or that he would strive in that general direction I would be happy to reconsider my amendment.

I do not have a closed mind with regard to the selection of members of the board. It would be my earnest desire to co-opt good people onto the board, people who have been successful in their sectoral activity, people who could articulate at board level the requirements of the industry so that their views can gel or maintain a balance in the overall decision-making process.

I can assure Deputies that I will bear in mind the views they have expressed in the course of this debate.

I made the plea to the Minister on Second Stage which I might reiterate, that is that he pick the members of the board on their ability and practical experience in the industry. The day should be long past when perhaps up to 20 people could be chosen from the different sectors of horticulture when no doubt there would be a good chance of there being included some lame ducks. In successful businesses here it has been proven that one should pick men with the requisite business acumen. I would appeal to the Minister to adhere to that practice on this occasion.

The debate has now moved to the two amendments I tabled and which have not been moved. The amendments accepted had a specific bearing on whether members of the staff should be represented on the board. Those amendments should now be put and my amendments moved because that is what the debate is now about.

We had decided to discuss certain amendments together with the exception of Nos. 16, 19 and 20 which Deputy Stagg requested be taken separately. However, I am in the hands of the House in this matter.

Before there is any further debate on the membership of the board amendments Nos. 16, 19 and 20 should be put. Then we could deal with the composition of the board because that is what my amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are about.

We can only proceed with the amendments before the House — Nos. 16, 17, 19 and 20 in that order.

I have the greatest respect for Deputy Leonard's point of view. He always speaks in a pertinent way on agricultural matters. However, I might sound a note of warning that he is under threat of being reprimanded.

Some weeks ago I spoke on this part of the Bill on Second Stage with regard to the content of the board. I made the point Deputy Leonard has just made, which is that the board should not be comprised of nominees of various interest groups within the horticultural sector. Lo and behold, the county executive of Kildare IFA wrote to the Leader of my party objecting to my remarks saying that they were offensive. Therefore, Deputy Leonard can expect a letter from the county executive of Kildare County IFA through the office of the Leader of his party who happens to be the Taoiseach.

I have received letters before.

Of course the Deputy is right. I suppose I am not being very modest but I contend I am in a fairly good position to adjudicate on matters like this since as Minister for Agriculture I had the task of selecting something like eight to ten boards. By far the worst boards were those comprised of nominees of interest groups, such as farming organisations, various interest sectors of the agricultural industry in addition to other fringe or ancillary industries. The best boards are those where the Minister chooses people who have a practical working knowledge of the subject in question. This is definitely my view as to how the board could be constituted and I have no apologies to make to any body, association or interest group. God help Ireland if Deputies cannot come into their Paraliament and express an honest view. There are times when we embellish it with a little poetic licence and that is what we are here for but we are not here to be stuffed shirts. We are here to express what we have to say, maybe not in as colourful a manner as Deputy Sheehan but in our own little way. What Deputy Leonard said today and what I said previously, and the Minister went along with it in his summing up on Second Stage, is so correct that I hope that is what comes out at the end of the wash. The Minister should be his own man and not, as Deputy Leonard said, allow himself to be waited on by lame ducks. There are some good people in the organisations but there are also some bad. If the Minister wants the best people on the board he should pick them from those recommended by people who have an active interest in the industry and who have the interests of horticulture at heart.

I agree with what Deputy Leonard and Deputy Deasy said. There is always a danger of the Minister and all of us being burdened with lame ducks, very often political lame ducks.

They are as bad.

They are worse. There is no cure for that type of lameness. Our amendments are about bringing special expertise on to the board, possibly to kick the lame ducks into straightness, and I think they would have a very definite and positive role in that regard. I am satisfied with the Minister's reply. He has kept his options open as far as our amendment and its objective are concerned, that is, to consider the expertise available with the possibility of making one of his appointments from that group.

Is Deputy Stagg's amendment No. 16 withdrawn?

On the basis of the Minister's reply I am not pressing amendments Nos. 16, 19 or 20.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, line 3, after "and" to insert "such persons shall be chosen by the Minister after such consultation as he considers appropriate, and".

I would like to take amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. A lot of ground has been covered so far as this area is concerned. What I am suggesting in amendment No. 17 is that such persons shall be chosen by the Minister after such consultation as he considers appropriate. That is giving him a free hand to consult with whom he likes and to pick some of the best people who are available. Amendment No. 18 proposes that five persons shall be chosen by the Minister after consultation with sections of the industry. I do not want to tie the Minister's hands in any way, but I am just asking him to consult with the industry, which I am sure he will do.

By now, nearly three years into his lifetime in this Department, the Minister will no doubt be familiar with some, if not all, of the best people in the industry. I hope that, on the basis of these two amendments, he will be free to appoint the five people but I hope he picks the best people to represent the industry. I know there has to be a balance: there will have to be some people from the retail industry because they too have an important role to play in the development of the industry and in ensuring that the products are properly produced and so on. They are the last stop so far as the housewife is concerned. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendments in the spirit of goodwill in which they have been put down. I hope the people he appoints to the board will be far thinking about what they would like to see achieved in two or three years' time.

To get back to what was said earlier vis-á-vis the chief executive, he should inspire the members and they should respond. If there is such a combination of people on the board I have no doubt we will have an organisation that will work effectively. I am recommending those two proposals to the Minister.

With regard to consultation, I have always adopted an open door policy with the different sections of the industry and I think that is wise. I am certainly not going to suddenly close the door when it comes to this matter. We have had meetings in this regard and obviously more meetings will take place. As I said when I was summing up on Second Stage, Deputy Deasy's contribution reflects his experience as Minister for Agriculture for nearly five years. He knows exactly what is required with these boards and the sort of chemistry that is needed on them. You need people who are practical and who know what they are doing in a particular area of activity. Most importantly, you need people who are uninhibited and who will make their input at board level with the long term interests of the industry they represent at heart. As far as possible, that is the sort of approach we will adopt towards the selection of the board. I would ask Deputy Farrelly to withdraw these amendments and to put his trust in me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Top
Share